American Civil War

[mikey4444]

I know very little about the Civil War but would I be right in thinking that it was basically the issue of slavery ?

That is the South wanted to keep slavery and the more educated North wanted to abolish it ?

Also, where did the Democrat and Republican parties originate ? Are they just the American equivalent of the same sort of political division that was in place in Britain at the same time, ie Whigs and Tories ?

[VHG]

This sounds like a homework question but here goes.

First you say the "educated North" but the North economy was much more diverse so they could carry on without slavery, whereas the South economy was almost totally dependent on cotton so they NEEDED slavery (so they thought) to carry on producing cotton.

There was very little "heavy industry" in the south (it was all cotton production) which was partly their undoing in the war as they could not produce more trains, ships, guns etc that they needed for the war.

The war was partly about slavery but also about "self determination".

At the time the country was made up a individual states (after all it is now called the United States of America) and many states felt independant so thought could make their own rules rather than being dictated to from Washington.

Some states were slavery states and others were non-slavery states. But Washington wanted to bring in a law that if a slave escaped from a slave state and went to a non slave state they would not need to be sent back.

The Southern states did not want this law changed and di not want to be dictated to by Washington so said they would pull out of the "Union", not be part of the country, and no longer be ruled by Washington.

So the war was really about did they want to be one country or not, or a set of separate states.

In fact when the war ended slavery carried on in the USA for many years, the war was not the end of slavery.

[VHG]

A bit of extra info.

Much of the East of America was divided into States at the time, and to keep the status quo there was always the same number of slave states as non-slave states.

This stopped one side or the other getting the upper hand and pushing through new slavery / non-slavery laws.

But much of the land in the middle of America had been owned by the French and was bought in the early 1800s in the "Lousiana Purchase" when 800,000 square miles were sold by the French to the Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

So a lot of the middle and West of America was not divided up into States, these were the "territories" (mostly Indian Territories") which the Americans had never moved into (they were pretty wild hence the term "Wild West").

Gradually these territories were divided up into States, but there was always one slave state and one non slave state (to keep the balance).

But President Lincoln (and others) said that in future all new states should become non-salve states, and this led to tension between the North and the South (again the subject of self determination).

So I say again, though slavery one one key factor, it was as much about whether the individual states could make their own rules, or if the USA was going to become one country, or a collection of individual states.

[mikey4444]

Thanks VHG. I realize that it was quite complicated, and not just a simple problem over slavery.

But it would seem that the issue over slaves, that is black people, persisted for many years. I was listening to Radio 4 yesterday, and there was a very interesting program about the making of "In the Heat of the Night" This film was made in 1967, and the Director, Norman Jewison told a story about how the Motel where all the film crew were staying was surrounded one night by rednecks, threatening everybody. He said it was very scary indeed.

One of my favorite films !

[tonyav]

Yes mikey a great film.

[VHG]

>>>But it would seem that the issue over slaves, that is black people, persisted for many years.

Yes I love that film, Great performances from Rod Steiger and Sidney Poitier.

I still think there are big problems in the USA about the whole issue of blacks and other ethnic groups, particulalry in the South.

I used to think it rather strange that US politicians used to moan at South Africa about their Apartheid, yet in the 1960s they still had it in the USA, with white only seats on buses, white only toilets, white only drinking fountains, white only schools and colleges etc.

And I bet there are still places in the South where black people, and other ethnic groups, go in fear of their lives.

[Clanad]

I'm not sure where you're obtaining the information... but addressing one point only is your statement that "... In fact when the war ended slavery carried on in the USA for many years, the war was not the end of slavery."

Factually, "...the 13th amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States, passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31, 1865. On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures. The necessary number of states ratified it by December 6, 1865. The 13th amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (Source: Encyclopedia of the Civil War ).

If one wishes to argue the continued existance of discrimination immediately following the end of that war, that, then, becomes a different subject and a different argument. By the way, nearly 625,000 men died during the struggle.

At first, in fact, the event was triggered (no pun intended) by State's Rights... with slavery being a side issue. Lincoln, (the first Republican President) feared the disintergration of the country into squabbling individual small countries (a la Europe) and was willing to do almost anything to prevent that.

As a side note, slavery was introduced into the U.S. by a Dutch ship loaded with black slaves that arrived in New York in the early 17th century. But slaves weren't a necessity in the Northern States due to the smaller nature of the farms. In the South, the slaves were actaully first imported to tend and harvest tobacco, only resorting to cotton after Eli Whitney's invention of the Cotton Gin in 1793.

In my humble opinion, the discrimination, though greatly alleviated due to the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and 60's, inflicted on the black segment today is caused as much by the disintergration of the black family as any thing else.
The Democrats, especially in the south have found that literally wasting billions of dollars since the "Great Society" movement introduced by the democrat President Johnson (following the assassination of Kennedy) has brought them a government dependence and an almost universal voting bloc. Since Johnson's tenure, poverty and disappearance of the once solid black family has actually increased... dramatically. Yet blacks continue to follow that party right over the cliff. To the point that 75% of black babies born today are to single women and 38% of inmates of prisons are black while only constituting about 13% of the total population.

I'm not astute enough to clearly see any solution on the horizon. It's generally agreed (referencing recent nationwide polls) that race relationships here has suffered greatly since the election of President Obama. This, from both sides...Pity considering the great strides made in previous decades.

Lastly, with the rise of the grug culture and its associated gangs in the large northern cities such as Detroit, blacks actually are doing far better, economically and socially in the "South" rather than the north... Detroit is a war zone, and no sane person, black or white ventures "downtown"...

[seadogg]

Thank you clanad. Surely that is answerbank at its best.